Re-examining the research on parental conflict, coparenting, and custody arrangements.

Nielsen, Linda

doi:10.1037/law0000109

Cited by 72 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 99 publications

(137 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Further, scholar advocates have made much of the negative consequences of father/mother absence, but do not mention the negative consequences of the presence of parents who are poor role models or engage in problematic parenting practices. (Bauserman, ; McCall, ); Nielsen, , ; Warshak, ).…”

Section: Why Pa Continues To Generate Such Controversy and Polaritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

Johnston¹,

Sullivan²

2020

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of parental alienation (PA) has expanded in popular usage at the same time that it remains mired in controversy about its scientific integrity and its use as a legal strategy in response to an increasing range of issues in family court. In this paper we describe how competing advocacy movements (for mothers, fathers and children) in the family justice field have, over time, helped shape the shifting definitions and widening focal concerns of PA-from children who make false allegations of abuse, to those who resist or refuse contact with a parent, to parent relocation, and to the emotional abuse wrecked upon children who are victims of a manipulative parent. In search of common ground for a sound approach to using PA concepts, we argue that the Single Factor model of PA (asserting that an alienating preferred parent is primarily the source of the problem) is inadequate, overly simplistic and misleading. A Single Factor model rests on the fallacy that abuse or poor parenting on the part of either parent have been, or are able to be, ruled out as sufficient reason for the child's rejecting stance. By contrast, multi-factor models of PA make more useful, valid, differentiated clinical predictions of children's rejection of a parent, informed by basic and applied research on children and families. However, multi-factor models are complex and difficult to argue in court and to use in assessment and interventions. Suggestions are made for developing intervention-focused prediction models that reduce the number of factors involved and are applicable across different types of interventions. Key Points for the Family Court Community:Several socio-cultural-legal movements in the last 30 years have contributed to the prevalence, focal concerns and ongoing controversies about Parental Alienation.Persistent erroneous assumption that an alienating parent is primarily the source of a child's resistance/rejection of a parent (called the dominant Single-Factor theory of PA) is problematic in applying PA constructs in research and practice.Four principal factors (illustrating a refined multi-factorial predictive model of PA) are identified as goals for preventive-interventions and are proposed as measures for evaluating outcomes across different kinds of interventions resist/refuse cases in practice.

show abstract

Section: Why Pa Continues To Generate Such Controversy and Polaritiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

Johnston¹,

Sullivan²

2020

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The article, which forcefully critiqued the original research of another think tank participant, was later labeled by the author as an “International Consensus Report” (Warshak, ). Thus, along with divergent views on shared parenting, and claims and counterclaims of misrepresenting research, another debate emerged over the question: What represents consensus in the scientific community (McIntosh, Smyth, & Kelaher, ; Neilson, , ; Warshak, )? In their report, Pruett and DiFonzo () identify six “consensus points” representing the majority, but not unanimous, view of Closing the Gap participants.…”

Section: Aftermath and Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

AFCC Think Tanks: Promoting Dialogue on Difficult Issues in Family Law*

Salem¹

2019

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines three think tanks sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which convened representatives of different disciplines, often with differing perspectives, to address policy and practice dilemmas in family law and dispute resolution. This essay was initially commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation, London, UK, as an Insight Article for its Family Justice Observatory, which aims to improve the use of data and research evidence in the family justice system in England and Wales. The think tank process is described and analyzed, identifying factors that created challenges and those that led to success.

show abstract

“…Given the great attention on the topic by family scholars, practitioners, and law professionals, it is not surprising that several meta‐analyses and reviews about joint physical custody or shared parenting have been published in recent years. The majority focused, for good reasons, on the well‐being of children (meta‐analysis: Baude, Pearson, & Drapeau, ; reviews: Fehlberg, Smyth, MacClean, & Roberts, ; Gilmore, ; Kelly, ; Nielsen, , ; Smyth, ; review of Swedish studies: Fransson, Hjiern, & Bergström, ), but two of them also concentrated on parental adjustment (meta‐analysis: Bauserman, ; review: Nielsen, ). So what does this particular review add to the existing literature?…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Children's and Parents’ Well‐Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joint physical custody (JPC), a parental care arrangement in which a child lives with each parent for at least 25-50% of the time after separation or divorce, is increasingly common in many Western societies. This is a major shift from the standard of sole physical custody, with mostly mothers providing primary childcare after a parental separation or divorce. The increasing share of separated or divorced parents who practice JPC, which in some countries, US states, and regions reaches 30% and more, results from increasing gender equality due to mothers participating considerably in the labor force and fathers being actively involved in their children's daily lives. This review focuses on the effects of JPC on children's and parents' well-being, based on 40 studies from North America, Australia, and Europe published between 2007 and 2018. In sum, there is empirical evidence from different countries that suggests that JPC arrangements can have positive effects on the well-being of children and of parents. However, the existing studies are conceptually, methodologically, and contextually very heterogeneous. In addition, self-selected highly educated parents with a high socio-economic status, a low conflict level, and children between the ages of 6-15 practicing JPC dominate the samples. Thus, the risks and benefits of JPC are not clear yet and are heavily debated by advocates and academics. The review concludes with suggestions for future research.

show abstract

Re-examining the research on parental conflict, coparenting, and custody arrangements.

Cited by 72 publications

References 99 publications

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

Parental Alienation: In Search of Common Ground For a More Differentiated Theory

AFCC Think Tanks: Promoting Dialogue on Difficult Issues in Family Law*

Children's and Parents’ Well‐Being in Joint Physical Custody: A Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About